Google Android and the perils of software by committee

Is this a coming of age story or just an example of a great idea gone terribly wrong at the outset?

Enter with Care

Google over the past 10 years has completely reshaped the way the internet is used by the world. Providing applications that are easy to use, spiffy and just a complete departure from what was out there before they entered the fray. With Android, Google entered the OS market and they did it in the already over fragmented and completely dysfunctional mobile OS market. The mobile segment is obviously very appealing to Google and the potential for advertising on devices that are context aware is huge, understandably Google wants to develop a platform that allows them to serve ads more easily - the OS is the perfect entry point for this and hence they’re expending energy building it.

Software by Committee

Building a great piece of software very rarely occurs using a committee style approach. You know the saying “shit trickles downhill”, well the way committee driven, consortium style OS’es are built (look at Symbian for eg.) compounds this to “giant quantities of shit acts as a mudslide” and destroys your original product idea. That’s precisely what’s happening with Android. A bunch of MBA’s from different companies get together in a room and argue about some inane feature that they absolutely must have and the entire creative process of software development comes to an abrupt stop.  Google’s now dealing with issues that MS deals with. Both companies have a ton of smart people who know how to build great software but they also have battalions of MBA types to slow them down.

They say partnerships are key in the mobile OS space

Building partnerships with carriers and OEM’s is the key to building a great mobile platform they said… it’s important to listen to the carriers and have them control the software that goes on the devices they said…

The Mobile OS space is like a pseudo-religion with all kinds of prophet messiah types proselytising about what’s good for the consumers and how to increase RPU (revenue per user) etc. Then one day Apple joins the fray and proves how little of this is true. Build a consumer device that truly is outstanding and carriers and all the other committees that you possibly had to deal with just prostrate themselves. Is the iPhone-iTunes a great platform - yes it is. Does it make money for both the carriers and the device manufacturer - yes it does. So what’s all this mumbo-jumbo with partnerships, committees and alliances that Google’s got itself into?

Dealing with nuances

Ask anyone at Symbian on advice about dealing with an alliance that governs the features that go into their OS. It is a game of catering to the nuances. Small intricate details that a carrier wants to restrict or add or remove. More than half the energy expended by the team is spent on getting things to work. The nuance is satisfied for the alliance member but the experience for the end user is absolutely crap. Instead of focusing on the consumer the development team is focused on how to ensure that the agreements with the alliance members are not voided. Google would have done better to build an Android Phone themselves and see adoption amongst consumers. I for one would have bought a Google Android phone just to try out the software on it. Now, I can barely think about wasting that money there… Google is just a member of the OHA and there are plenty of loud voices on that team to ensure that not all the software will have originated from the Google fortress.

The reason for the delays are summed up by none other than Andy Rubin on GigaOm recently :

“This is where the pain happens,” Andy Rubin, Google’s director of mobile platforms told WSJ. “We are very, very close.” He was talking about adding features etc requested by carrier partners. I think this is why Jobs was smart in being tyrannical and ignoring carrier requests when it came to software. Google apparently can’t afford to ignore partner requests.

What’s next for Android?

Well, I agree with Andy about being close to a shippable product at this moment but given the alliance route they have chosen they will always be very very close i.e. close in terms of satisfying their carrier and OEM bed-mates and somewhat close in satisfying their consumers: none will ever really be happy with their product. It’ll be a Symbian like progression of mundane software releases and tons of heartache for all the developers involved.

I hope I am wrong for all the smart devs involved in that team!